Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
If Optecks has a relationship with TDCP where they are doing the R&D, should this not have been obvious to the investors as their relationship with OU has been?
Am am confused about improvements by Optecks affecting TDCP.
I am convinced that what is happening with TDCP is beyond my understanding and that I need to choose another investment opportunity. I appreciate the education from you all!
A spreadsheet is in my email in response to Open records Act response. There is no link. The entire redacted submission (at least for the grants) is available for a fee from OCAST. OCAST is very particular about the information it will release in response to an ORA request. I did not request it since I was looking for info on other PIs at a state agency.
I was aware of the TDCP grant and just stumbled across the Optecks link since Refai is the Principal Investigator (another field on the form) for both proposals.
That is what I expected so how can it go to Optecks?
From AR14-012
…. To date, Optecks has made significant investments into the theoretical and experimental studies needed to develop its technology, in addition to the costs associated with filing patents to secure its technology. As the exclusive licensee of this 3D display technology that is being developed and funded by Optecks, … In addition, Optecks will seek private investors looking to make a profit on the product commercialization and funding from federal agencies where the need for 3D volumetric displays is clear and the benefit of adding such displays to their systems is substantial.
The goal of the proposed project is to develop and optimize the performance of key components of a static volumetric 3D display and to subsequently produce a viable product prototype that can rapidly transition to a commercially viable prototype. The components to be optimized are the optical subsystems that generate the high-resolution 3D images, the electronic and software subsystems that control and coordinate the process of producing the image, and the materials and fabrication processes for a high optical clarity, efficient, and fast display volume to minimize power consumption and eliminate image flicker. … The project will use a combination of experimental research and theoretical modeling to meet the stated goals and objectives. The project builds upon prior research and development of 3D display systems by Optecks.
From AR132-019 (funded)
…. As the exclusive licensee of this 3D display technology that was developed by the University of Oklahoma under a series of Sponsored Research Agreements that were funded by 3DIcon, … Because 3DIcon is a publically traded company without significant revenues and a small market capitalization due to lack of significant revenue, there is additional motivation to commercialize this technology / generate revenue from this technology to provide the market with metrics (revenue, earnings & growth) from which to more appropriately value the company and therefore maximize shareholder value.
The goal of the proposed project is to improve the performance of key components of a static volumetric 3D display and to subsequently produce a commercially viable product prototype that can be rapidly transitioned to commercial production. … At project's end, the resultant display will possess capabilities suitable for applications in computer and data visualization and in novel human-computer interfaces. … The project will use a combination of experimental research and theoretical modeling to meet the stated goals and objectives. The project builds upon prior research and development of prototype systems by 3DIcon Corporation.
Then who owns the IP post OU?
You all have identified other issues from the past about which I have no information from my research. All that does is confuse me even more. That there are former TDCP relationships which are now elsewhere is unsettling.
As I said, I am an inexperienced investor and have trouble finding a benefit to either management or the investors of a bankruptcy. There must be some value in the IP the company owns. Surely the company is not allowing the IP to go out the door with the R&D personnel.
The technology is intriguing which is why I am here. The business issue has enough drama to be the plot line of a soap opera.
It makes no sense that TDCP management would go through all of the trouble to go for federal funding. The grants are unlikely to be transferable.
I did not find Optecks in the SBA database as would be required, as I understand it, for these grants. Will they compete at a later date like OCAST? They have stated they will be doing so.
I would expect that the precursor IP is OU's or TDCP's. I do see the possibility of IP "leakage" to organizations outside the TDCP which should concern both management and investors. If the IP did not belong to the company but to the researchers as it appears is being claimed in the proposal summary, what was the value of the research to the company and why did the company pay for the R&D?
SOS registration is June 2013.
From another posting it sounds like some of their current relationships were previously TDCP's.
What seems odd is that Optecks relationship seems to have come to light only through a mention in a report for another purpose that just happened to take over a year to obtain. Had it been received when first requested (2013), the Optecks reference would not have been included.
Since management has some of the largest holdings, I do not see how a bankruptcy benefits them other than their holdings were likely grants for which they did not pay while other investors actually forked out hard cash.
I am a novice at this type of investing and may be both overly cautious and overthinking the issue, but I just do not understand how investors benefit from the relationship of the R&D person being closely involved with similar and piggybacked products via his own company.
What happens if the products were developed while at OU and the IP rights have not yet been filed?
If this is so good, why does not TDCP acquire Optecks?
How is the CTO of TDCP doing work on similar projects for his own company good for the investors of TDCP?
How are two companies submitting very similar, competing research grant proposals with the same PI good for TDCP investors?
How is the CTO of TDCP spending any time on projects of any other company good for investors of TDCP? An exempt employee is not a 40 hour per week job.
How is the development of projects by another company based on the research funded by the investors of TDCP good for the investors?
I would expect it should be a concern for investors when the person with interests outside the company is the registered SBA contact for the company.
Should all relationships involving the other company be disclosed to the investors?
Should there not be a non-compete agreement in place for all involved in the R&D in order to protect the investors from having the IP transferred to another company without payment to TDCP?
Other than Refai, who else is active in both?
As far as I can tell, there is not a current contract for R&D with OU. The type OCAST award does not include the university although this could have been a possibility. Of course, OU would want a share of the IP (like being the assignee of the patents).
The type of award also determines the matching requirements to claim the OCAST money. TDCP needs cash to pay for the R&D to claim the matching funds. See the OARS solicitation for an explanation.
(IMO it is reasonable not to collaborate with a university given their claims to IP. It is possible for a company or person to pay for lab space and time without OU having the IP claims.
Look at match requirements for OARS grants. Grants to corp cannot use in-kind services for match; grants to universities can use in-kind services from a company for the match payment to university
Difficult to get info on actual proposals. News releases and agency newsletters are best public info
Track payments to entities via OpenbooksOK vendor option. Can get payments for a time period
Payments to TDCP 11/2013 to 11/2014 $102,644 when eligible for $150,000 with match.
Two $6K payments 10/10/2014 for invoices I'd guess to be R&D salaries. Several other exactly $6K payments. Tends to indicate ongoing employer-employee relationship.
Also, Badia and Hakki are likely married as in some places she uses Refai as last name
Not necessarily. If Optecks had received grant, 3Dicon should have lost its from the same agency per the solicitation rules.
Website does not show project referred to in earlier post.
Does 3DICON even know about Optecks and that Optecks is seeking funding from at least one of the same sources that 3DICON has a grant from?
If so, what does this mean to the investors and funding agencies? The answer to this is way above my pay grade.
IN EXISTENCE shows current in filings with SOS. I have seen companies who have not filed properly have status changed to indicate obvious filing problem. Late filing will reinstate status.
Don't understand the name reservations ...
From ORA request on other issue:
The goal of the proposed project is to develop and optimize the performance of key components of a static volumetric 3D display and to subsequently produce a viable product prototype that can rapidly transition to a commercially viable prototype. The components to be optimized are the optical subsystems that generate the high-resolution 3D images, the electronic and software subsystems that control and coordinate the process of producing the image, and the materials and fabrication processes for a high optical clarity, efficient, and fast display volume to minimize power consumption and eliminate image flicker. The display writes specially designed diffractive elements via holographic methods, and these elements direct power from a full-color projection source over a wide angle to allow seamless viewing of the image all angles. This approach requires an efficient optically active material to produce bright and rapidly changing images in a cost effective and operationally safe manner. The display will have a refresh rate of 30 Hz to eliminate flicker, and a target resolution of up to 800 million voxels. At project's end, the resultant prototype display will possess capabilities suitable for applications in 3D data visualization, 3D printing, scanning systems, and application specific product designs and volume production. To meet the development goals and created the targeted display, several objectives must be met. The first objective is to design and optimize the optical systems that write and scan diffraction-based diffusing screens through the display and subsequently project the 3D image to the viewer. The size, shape, and divergence of the writing laser beams and the projection beams and the physical geometry of the system components must be specified to create the necessary image quality and resolution. The second objective is to select the most appropriate material for the display volume. The material must possess high optical clarity and must interact efficiently in with the optical sources so that images are created with less optical power and without flicker. The third objective is to upgrade the key software and electronic subsystems that control the generation of 3D images to ensure operational parameters. The project will use a combination of experimental research and theoretical modeling to meet the stated goals and objectives. The project builds upon prior research and development of 3D display systems by Optecks.
I know I do not have all of the info but am concerned that statements made here are inconsistent. There may be something deeding OU's rights to the company; I know patents were addressed in one doc
Right now the puzzle is how Optecks fits into the picture. Is it competing with the next generation product or the reincarnation under another name? Is the company even aware of it?
I have no idea about what is going on - or where the research is being done - or why there are other OCAST proposals - or ...
Open Records Act is your friend
Have no idea why a company would do multiple name reservations when they have a valid and current corporate registration.
Their status indicates they are current in their SOS annual filing. I have seen others with missing reports listed otherwise so that part of the system works.
Check Registered Agent for Optecks.
Assigned to ...
OU faculty member in Tulsa
For OPTECKS - you make the call
Check patent ownership too. USPTO search is incomplete; search by individual numbers. Is this current?
Check OK SOS Business registration
Check out OPTECKS LLC for family relationships.
Which senator?
What is the company's relationship with Optecks?